Quote:
Originally posted by idle acts
Which is why the government (state and federal) needs to get out of the business of according people benefits based upon their marital status. Either marriage is a civil law institution or it's a religious one.
|
Until religion is no more, it will always be both. Having two adults as the basic generational family unit is hardwired into our evolutionary history. So it was formalized with a religious overlay for millennia. Sex was the reason we formed pair bonds, but religion was what kept us from breaking them at will. The state cannot simply say, "We recognize these two are one" without heavily relying upon its deep resonance with notions of romantic love, devotion, eternity and fidelity that are echoes of Western religious tradition.
As for affording "benefits" based on marital status, I have no idea how the state can
stop doing so. The tax benefit/burden issue is complicated and can be easily reset --- maybe it should be. But when a person becomes incompetent, who else but their spouse will speak for them? When a person dies intestate, who else but their spouse will inherit?
Religion is the reason we have dissolution proceedings rather than "see ya!" I'm all in favor of no-fault divorce, because the alternative was so horrific. But, even putting religion aside, the state still has an interest in making divorce somewhat messy and expensive, because a two-parent family is more likely to be self-sufficient and economically efficient. (I think we should do things that encourage intergenerational living, too, because I think that's also more efficient than alternatives.)
Quote:
|
If civil, then everybody gets to share in the benefits equally, and those of you who want to have an additional, separate, religious ceremony can do so.
|
That's basically what we're moving toward, hampered only by fundamentalism's hold on the American psyche. We make fun of the Northern European welfare states, but socially we'll be there in twenty years. We'll go there kicking and screaming, though.
